coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Balatonszabadi.
5.  On 11 September 2012 Parliament enacted Act no. CXXXIV of 2012 on the Repression of Smoking of the Youth and on Tobacco Retail. The Act was published on 24 September 2012.
6.  According to the Act, tobacco retail was to become a State monopoly (exercised through a State-owned company, ND Nemzeti Dohánykereskedelmi Nonprofit Zrt), and tobacco retailers would become authorised through a concession tender, advertised on 15 December 2012. The time-limit for applying was 22 February 2013.
7.  Entities or persons previously engaged in tobacco retail had no privileges in the tender.
8.  The Act was subsequently amended on several occasions, and the final version was enacted on 6 June 2013, with entry into force on 1 July 2013. Government Decree no. 181/2013. (VI.7.), which contained the detailed rules for the operations of the future concession-holders, was published on 8 June 2013, that is, after the completion of the tendering process, the results of which had become public on 22 April 2013. The decision about the tenders was taken by ND Zrt itself.
9.  The applicant, a tobacco retailer active in this business since 2008, applied for a concession and paid the relevant application fee.
10.  On 10 July 2013 the applicant was informed, in a letter sent by ND Zrt, that she had not obtained a tobacco retail concession. The decision said that her application did not fully meet the requirements, without developing the shortcomings. The Government submitted that her application scored 59 out of 120.
No compensation is available for ex-tobacco-retailers who, by not being awarded a concession, lost part of their livelihood.
11.  The refusal was not subject to any legal remedy. The applicant submitted that she pursued a constitutional complaint, and that although the outcome was not known on introducing the present application, this legal avenue could not in any case provide material redress.
12.  The applicant further submitted that others in comparable situations – and in the case of those who had never been engaged in tobacco retail beforehand, in non-comparable situations – were granted concessions, which difference in treatment cannot be explained by any circumstance other than political adherence.
5.  All the applicants were employed by RTB Bor – grupa Industrija za preradu Majdanpek, a socially-owned company based in Majdanpek (hereinafter “the debtor”).
6. Since the debtor had failed to fulfil its obligations toward its employees, the applicants brought numerous separate civil suits, seeking payment of salary arrears and various social security contributions.
7.  The applicants obtained final court judgments ordering the debtor to pay them certain sums. The essential information as to the domestic proceedings in respect of each application is indicated in the appended table.
8.  Following a period during which the enforcement proceedings had been suspended, between June and August 2011 the final court judgments in question were all fully enforced in respect of the applicants.
9.  Since October 2011, the debtor is a company predominantly comprised of State or socially owned capital and is still in the process of being restructured.
5.  The applicants were born in 1974 and 1979 respectively and are serving whole life sentences in Burgas Prison.
6.  The facts of the case can be summarised as follows.
7.  In November 2001 both applicants were arrested on suspicion of murder and were remanded in custody. In September 2002 they were transferred to Burgas Prison. In December 2004 the trial court, Burgas Regional Court, found them guilty of murder resulting from terrorist activity and sentenced them to whole life imprisonment, to be served initially under the “special regime”. In April 2006 the appellate court, Burgas Court of Appeal, upheld that sentence which was further upheld by the Supreme Court of Cassation in a final judgment of 16 January 2008.
8.  The applicants have been serving their sentences under the “special regime” in Burgas Prison, in permanently locked individual cells measuring 1.5 by 3 metres, under heightened security supervision. Both applicants have been allowed out of their cells for between one and two hours a day to take exercise in the open, which they have been spending walking in the prison courtyard.
9.  The parties diverge in respect of the material conditions in which the applicants have been kept.
10.  According to the applicants, the daylight in the cells has been scant and a light bulb attached to the ceiling has been on 24 hours a day. There is so little unencumbered space in the cell that the applicants are forced to spend most of the day either lying or sitting on their beds. There are no toilets in their cells and, since the beginning of 2008, the prison authorities have allowed them to use the common sanitary facilities three times a day. The rest of the time they use a bucket to satisfy their physiological needs. Hygiene is rather poor: the prison premises, including the canteen and kitchen, are infested with cockroaches and rats. The food is of inadequate quality and insufficient quantity. The medical service in the prison lacks even the most basic medical supplies. Mr Dimitrov caught psoriasis in prison and because of the absence of adequate treatment his condition has deteriorated into psoriatic arthritis.
11.  According to the Government, the applicants’ cells are equipped with toilets and the light is sufficient for them to read and write. In addition, the prison premises are cleaned every day and a thorough cleaning is carried out weekly by a specially designated individual. The authorities employ the services of an external company which regularly cleans and disinfects all prison areas. The prison director supervises the quality and quantity of the food offered to the inmates who receive meat dishes six times a week and a vegetarian dish once a week. The prisoners have access to a bathroom with hot running water six times a day. Sometimes they spend up to two hours a day in the open. They can visit the prison library, the prison chapel, as well as take part in – unspecified – group activities. Mr Ribov has tended to participate in them happily, while Mr Dimitrov has refused to do so without giving any reason for that.
5.  The applicants were born in 1965 and 1961 respectively and live in Ramučiai, Kaunas Region. They are wife and husband.
6.  In 1993 the Karmėlava Circuit Council of the Kaunas Region (Kauno rajono Karmėlavos apylinkės tarnyba) assigned a plot of land measuring 1.97 hectares to the first applicant (hereinafter “the land”), Ms Noreikienė (hereinafter “the first applicant”), for individual farming. In 1996 the Kaunas County Administration authorised her to buy the land for a nominal price of 123 “single-use investment vouchers” (investiciniai čekiai) and 6 Lithuanian litai (LTL – approximately 1.7 euro (EUR)).
7.  On 2 August 2004 the first applicant signed a land purchase agreement with the Kaunas County Administration to acquire the land from the State. The plot was subsequently registered in the Land Registry in the joint names of both applicants.
8.  In 2005 a third party, V.A., brought a civil claim against the Kaunas County Administration and the both applicants, seeking restoration of his ownership rights to the land. He argued that a request for restitution of property had already been submitted in 1991, so the land had been assigned and later sold to the first applicant unlawfully.
9.  On 14 April 2006 the Kaunas District Court (Kauno rajono apylinkės teismas) allowed V.A.’s claim. It held that the first applicant had been assigned the land unlawfully because the local authorities had an obligation to resolve restitution claims before assigning plots to new owners, and because she did not fulfil the legal criteria for being assigned land. Applying the principle of priority of former owners’ rights, the court annulled the administrative decisions assigning the land to the first applicant and the land purchase agreement, and ordered the Kaunas County Administration to return LTL 129 (EUR 37) to the applicants.
10.  On 31 October 2006 the Kaunas Regional Court quashed the lower court’s decision and dismissed the civil claim. V.A. lodged a cassation appeal. On 15 May 2007 the Supreme Court quashed the disputed decision and remitted the case to the Kaunas Regional Court for re-examination.
11.  On 24 September 2007 the Kaunas Regional Court upheld the first‑instance decision of 14 April 2006 and allowed V.A.’s claim.
12.  On 30 November 2007 the Supreme Court refused to examine the applicants’ cassation appeal, on the grounds that it did not raise any important legal issues.
5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Kaunas.
6.  In 1989 the local authorities assigned a plot of land measuring 0.03 hectares to the applicant for the construction of a house (hereinafter “the land”). In 1991 Kaunas City Council confirmed the validity of that decision.
7.  Between 1992 and 1994 the applicant obtained a building permit and began laying the foundations. According to the applicant, he subsequently had to suspend the building works due to the worsening economic situation, thus the house was not completed.
8.  In 1994 the applicant bought the land for a nominal price of 24 “single-use investment vouchers” (investiciniai čekiai) and 98 Lithuanian litai (LTL – approximately 28 euros (EUR)), which he paid to the Kaunas County Administration. In 2005 he signed a land purchase agreement with the Kaunas County Administration. The plot was subsequently registered in the Land Registry in his name.
9.  In 2006 third parties V.P. and T.I. brought a civil claim seeking restoration of their ownership rights to the land. They argued that they had already submitted requests for restitution of property in 1992, 2001 and 2003, so the land had been assigned and later sold to the applicant unlawfully.
10.  On 16 August 2007 the Kaunas City District Court allowed the civil claim. The court held that the applicant had been assigned the land unlawfully because the local authorities had an obligation to resolve restitution claims before assigning plots to new owners. Applying the principle of priority of former owners’ rights, the court annulled the administrative decisions assigning the land to the applicant and the land purchase agreement, and ordered the Kaunas County Administration to return LTL 122 (EUR 35) to the applicant. The land was returned to the State.
11.  On 23 January 2008 the Kaunas Regional Court upheld that decision.
12.  The applicant lodged a cassation appeal. On 30 April 2008 the Supreme Court refused to examine it on the ground that it did not raise any important legal issues.
13.  In September 2008 the applicant requested the Kaunas regional prosecutor to investigate whether V.P. and T.I. had produced false documents proving their ownership rights. The prosecutor refused to launch an investigation on the ground that no crime appeared to have been committed. The domestic courts upheld that decision.
4.  The applicant was born in 1926 and lives in Durrës.
5.  The applicant’s father was the owner of two plots of agricultural land, which, at some point, were expropriated by the communist regime.
6.  On 19 September 1996 the Durrës District Court acknowledged the existence of the applicant’s inherited property rights to a plot of agricultural land measuring 72,000 sq. m in accordance with Article 388 of the Civil Code (vërtetim fakti juridik). The operative provision reads as follows:
“the court accepts the plaintiff’s civil action and acknowledges the existence of the legal fact that his father possessed an agricultural plot of land measuring 72,000 sq. m (...). This recognition is made for compensation purposes (“pranimin e kërkesë padisë së paditësit Xhaferr Bici duke vërtetuar faktin juridik të pronësisë së babait të tij mbi një sipërfaqe toke bujqësore 72,000 sq. m (...). Kjo njohje bëhet për efekt kompensimi).”
7.  On 26 September 1996 the applicant, relying on the District Court’s decision, lodged an application with the Durrës Property Restitution and Compensation Commission (Komisioni i Kthimit dhe Kompensimit të Pronave – “the Commission”) seeking the recognition, restitution and/or compensation of the property.
8.  From 2001 to 2008, the applicant requested several authorities to recognise his property right and restore the property to him.
9.  On 11 March and 19 November 2002 the Durrës Prefecture (Prefektura e Qarkut Durrës) and the Commission stated that the application had been pending since 1996. The Commission also stated that the application was to be examined on the basis of the 1993 Property Act, as amended.
10.  On 28 August 2007 the Commission confirmed that no decision had been taken in relation to the application of 26 September 1996. The letter included a list of documents that were part of the applicant’s file.
11.  On 14 July 2008 the Commission returned the applicant his application of 26 September 1996. It stated that no decision could be taken on the strength of the District Court’s decision of 19 September 1996 on the basis of section 17 of the 2004 Property Act, as amended (see paragraph 16 below). It further noted that the 1993 Property Act and the subsequent statutory legal acts, which provided for the recognition of the property rights on the basis of a decision acknowledging the existence of a legal fact about alleged property rights (vërtetim fakti juridik), had been repealed.
12.  There is no acknowledgment of receipt of the Commission’s letter of 14 July 2008 by the applicant.
4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Lisbon.
5.  The circumstances of the case concern a dispute between the applicant and company C.C. over the execution of a works contract (contrato de empreitada) pursuant to which the latter undertook, in 1996, to build the applicant a house.
6.  On 22 May 2007 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Oeiras Civil Court against company C.C. for the alleged failure in the execution of the contract.
7.  Between 22 May and 29 October 2007 company C.C. and the applicant submitted submissions in reply (constestação) and new submissions (réplica). Company C.C. argued, in particular, that the court had already decided in a case on the same subject (caso julgado).
8.  On 26 August 2008 the Oeiras Civil Court gave directions considering that it had already decided on the same subject in a previous case (despacho saneador). The applicant appealed against this decision before the Lisbon Court of Appeal, which on 8 May 2009 revoked the Oeiras Civil Court decision and ordered the examination of the case. On an unknown date company C.C. appealed against this decision to the Conference of the Lisbon Court of Appeal, which on 16 July upheld its decision of 8 May 2009.
9.  On 12 February 2010 the Oeiras Civil Court gave new directions setting out the questions which needed to be assessed. The applicant challenged the decision and both parties submitted evidence.
10.  On 18 November 2010 held the first hearing. Until 19 September 2011 the Oeiras Civil Court listed eleven hearings, in which several witnesses were heard.
11.  On 30 September 2011 the Oeiras Civil Court adopted a judgment ruling against the applicant.
12.  On 23 January 2012 the applicant challenged the outcome of the proceedings before the Lisbon Court of Appeal. On 14 June 2012 the case-file was sent to the Lisbon Court of Appeal. Meanwhile, first-instance judge had to analyse a question of nullity which had been raised by the parties in the grounds of appeal submitted.
13.  On 29 January 2013 the Lisbon Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance judgment.
14.  On 1 March 2013 the applicant appealed to the Supreme Court of Justice, which dismissed the appeal for being lodged out of time. The applicant challenged this decision, which was upheld on 25 July 2013 by a decision of the Vice-President of the Supreme Court of Justice.
4.  The applicant is a Portuguese airline company headquartered in Sintra.
5.  The circumstances of the case concern a dispute between the applicant and an Israeli company over the execution of a wet lease contract pursuant to which the applicant undertook, in 2007, to lend an aircraft to the latter.
6.  On 20 April 2009 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Lisbon Civil Court against the company for the alleged failure to comply with the contract.
7.  On 28 July 2009 the plaintiff lodged its submissions in reply (contestação).
8.  On 30 September 2009 the applicant lodged new submissions in reply (réplica) and on 22 October 2009 the plaintiff submitted new submissions (tréplica).
9.  On 28 May 2010 the Lisbon Civil Court held a preliminary hearing aiming at a friendly settlement of the parties. The conciliation procedure was not possible and on the same day the plaintif submitted an additional pleading (articulado superveniente) to which the applicant replied on 7 June 2010. On 18 June and on 30 June 2010 the plaintiff and the applicant lodged new submissions in reply, respectively.
10.  On 12 July 2010 a second preliminary hearing was held and the judge gave directions setting out the matters that had already been established and those that remained outstanding (despacho saneador).
11.  On 21 July and 8 September 2010 the parties submitted their evidence.
12.  On 2 February 2011 the court held the first hearing. Between 2 February 2011 and 30 June 2011 the Lisbon Civil Court listed fifteen hearings. During this period, both parties submitted several documents to the court, some of which in a foreign language.
13.  On 3 October 2011 the Lisbon Civil Court adopted a decision with regard to the factual basis (matéria de facto). On 13 October and on 25 October 2011, both the applicant and the plaintiff submitted their allegations of law, respectively.
14.  On 19 July 2012 the Lisbon Civil Court rendered a judgment in which it ruled against the applicant and annulled the contract.
15.  On 1 October 2012 the applicant appealed against the first-instance judgment and on 31 October 2012 the plaintiff submitted its allegations.
16.  On 13 February 2014 the Lisbon Court of Appeal ruled partially in favour of the applicant.
17.  On 20 March 2014 the applicant appealed against the decision before the Supreme Court of Justice and on 28 April 2014 the plaintiff lodged a cross-appeal.
18.  On 7 October 2014 the Supreme Court of Justice adopted a judgment in favour of the applicant.
4.  The applicants were born in 1965, 1967, 1996, 1998 and 2000 respectively and live in Isaszeg. The first and second applicants are spouses and parents of the third, fourth and fifth applicants.
5.  The applicants lived as specially protected tenants in a flat owned by the local government of Budapest 12th District. Due to the seriously deteriorated condition of the flat, in December 1995 they concluded an agreement with a view to moving to another property of the local government. Subsequently, a dispute arose between the parties concerning the applicants’ rights flowing from the tenancy.
6.  In a first set of civil proceedings, the first applicant challenged the validity of the agreement concluded in December 1995. The Buda Central District Court dismissed the first applicant’s claim on 27 March 1996. The judgment became final at first instance.
7.  In September 1997 the first applicant brought a new action against the local government in relation to the tenancy agreement. This action was also dismissed by the Buda Central District Court; and the first instance judgment was upheld by the Budapest High Court in 2000, on a date not specified in the application.
8.  On 28 August 2001 the first applicant brought a third action before the Budapest High Court, claiming damages sustained in connection to the tenancy dispute.
9.  On 6 August 2002 the second, third, fourth and fifth applicants joined the first applicant’s action.
10.  Both the Budapest High Court and the Budapest Court of Appeal, the latter acting as a second instance court, turned down the applicants’ claims. The dates of the judgments were not specified in the application.
11.  The applicants lodged a petition for review. On 1 October 2014 the Kúria confirmed the final judgment. The judgment was served on the applicants on 4 December 2014.
4.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
5.  On 19 January 2005 bank C. brought enforcement proceedings against the applicant before the Setúbal Court seeking the payment of a debt of 106,278.60 euros (EUR) plus EUR 23,122.72 in interest.
6.  On 8 October 2007 a writ of execution was issued against the applicant concerning an apartment he had mortgaged to the bank (penhora do apartamento). On an unspecified date a judicial enforcement officer (agente de execução) was appointed by the Setúbal Court as depositary (fiel depositário), thus being in charge of the apartment and responsible for the course of the enforcement proceedings through the sale of the applicant’s apartment, pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure.
7.  On 29 September 2009 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Setúbal Court regarding the judicial enforcement officer’s inactivity in the proceedings.
8.  On 15 February 2012 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Commission for the Efficiency of Executions (Comissão para a Eficácia das Execuções) complaining about the judicial enforcement officer’s professional conduct which was preventing the sale of the applicant’s apartment. On 18 June 2012 the Commission acknowledged the receipt of the applicant’s complaint and in July 2012 informed him that they would start disciplinary proceedings against the judicial enforcement officer.
9.  On 3 October 2012 following the applicant’s complaint of 29 September 2009, the Setúbal Court adopted a decision removing the judicial enforcement officer from his post on the grounds of professional negligence and appointed a new one.
10.  According to the last information received by the Court on 8 July 2014 the proceedings are still pending at first instance.
4.  On 19 December 2005 the Sverdlovskiy District Court of Belgorod convicted the applicant of a drug offence and sentenced her to three years’ imprisonment. The judgment became final on 8 February 2006.
5.  On 21 December 2006 the Presidium of the Belgorod Regional Court, by way of a supervisory review, quashed the conviction and ordered a new trial. By the same decision the Presidium authorised the applicant’s release on an undertaking to appear.
6.  A copy of the Presidium’s decision was sent by regular mail and reached the facility where the applicant was serving her sentence only on 9 January 2007. Upon receipt of a certified copy, the applicant was released on 15 January 2007.
7.  On 5 June 2007 the Sverdlovskiy District Court acquitted the applicant of all charges, relying on the Court’s judgment in the Vanyan v. Russia case (no. 53203/99, 15 December 2005).
8.  The applicant complained to a court, seeking a declaration that the delay in her release from prison covering the period from 21 December 2006 to 15 January 2007 had been unlawful. On 25 April 2007 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Belgorod, noting the provisions of Article 173 § 5 of the Code on the Execution of Sentences, according to which early release may be carried out on the day of receipt of the release order, held that the applicant had been unlawfully detained from 9 to 15 January 2007.
9.  In August 2009 the applicant applied to a court, seeking compensation for the unlawful prosecution. By a judgment of 15 October 2009, the Sverdlovskiy District Court, relying on the provisions of the Civil Code relating to compensation for damage incurred on account of unlawful conviction or prosecution, found that the applicant had been “deprived of her liberty from 19 December 2005 to 15 January 2007” but had been later acquitted of all charges. The District Court awarded her 170,000 roubles (approximately 4,300 euros (EUR) at the material time), noting that the amount of compensation had been calculated with due account for the fact that the applicant’s detention from 9 to 15 January 2007 had been declared unlawful.
10.  The judgment was upheld on appeal by the Belgorod Regional Court on 22 December 2009. The award was paid in full in April 2010.